Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace/Archive 19

BRD is optional
Both Template:Uw-1rr and Template:Uw-3rr say this:

"The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done."

Problem: That page (BRD) doesn't actually tell people how to do this. It never has. Not only that, the first thing that it says is that BRD is an optional process for experienced editors. I hope that experienced editors aren't regularly receiving boilerplate messages about edit warring. People who recommend BRD to newcomers are people who have never read the page (which, granted, appears to be a fairly large proportion of editors).

I think we should remove the sentence about BRD entirely, and instead link to a simple page, suitable for newcomers, that explains how to start a discussion on a talk page. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that a simple version that covers most basic edit-warring issues would be sensible but I don't agree with removing references to BRD as it is a very valuable policy (and I don't think it should really be optional. Anyone who goes to ANI to complain about an edit war should be – and usually is –  sent away with the message "use the BRD procedure first" ringing in their ears.) But maybe the info about it [as the formal policy statement] could go in the 'simple' version you propose rather than in any uw-editwar boiler-plate. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @John Maynard Friedman, I wonder if you could summarize for me, without looking at BRD and in your own words, what you think BRD says. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , how about
 * "Wikipedia invites you to just go ahead and add material that you believe improves the article. If it is written "encyclopedially", is neutral and is supported by citation, it is likely to be accepted. However, on controversial topics, others may disagree and revert your change. This is a key principle of Wikipedia: the content of articles must reflect the consensus view of editors (subject always to the neutrality principle); the existing text must stand until there is a consensus to change it. The counterpoint to this 'right of anyone to edit' is the right of others to oppose and reject that edit pending consensus. So, tempting as it may be to counter-revert and insist that you are right (even if you are, indeed especially if you are), you must resist that temptation and go to article talk page. There is where you may explain your edit: it could simply be that your phrasing has been misinterpreted and just needs a little adjustment. Or it may be that you have to show that the preponderance of reliable third party sources support your position."


 * How is that for a start? Feel free to BRD! :-) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Good start, but that doesn't mean we can't do both. Keep the mention of BRD as a pointer to more information. Since violating BRD is often edit warring (a brute force attempt to change content over objections), it's important to not downplay BRD as "optional", which will nearly always be interpreted as meaningless. No, it's not meaningless as it's often the only way to prove who started an edit war and it is a shortcut way to cut to the chase. Edit summaries do not substitute for discussion. We can't always write all of this in the edit summary:
 * "Editor XXX, no editor has a right to impose their version when other editors have raised objections. View that REVERSION of your BOLD change as an objection. Now start a DISCUSSION of the issues and reach a consensus before changing the status quo version. Please follow BRD."
 * It's still good to not just say "follow BRD". We should accompany it with a few words voicing the core of the disagreement, but the edit summary isn't for long discussions. It should just provide a clue about what to expect at the talk page. -- Valjean (talk) 18:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's also worth pointing out the prominence that BRD has in policy, namely as a "Further information" link at Consensus. I agree that BRD is often cited incorrectly without proper context, but as others have said, some general form of BRD is usually required to show that editors are following good practices in achieving consensus.Perhaps append that statement to say: "See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for an example of how this is done." And personally, I would change "how this is done" to "how this can be accomplished", or something along those lines. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That's the problem. "Some general form of BRD" is not what's wanted.  What's wanted is "some general form of talking to other editors" is what's actually wanted.  BRD is a very specific, one-on-one negotiation tactic.  If you want general forms, then you want something that is not BRD.
 * For example: BRD says "Talk with one or at most two partners at once" (emphasis in the original).  Does that sound like generally applicable advice that will be useful in all edit-warring situations? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Guess I haven't explored it that deeply before. This is interesting. Yes, by the time an EW warning is levied against one or more parties, we are well beyond the bold and revert steps of BRD. The only remaining step is to discuss or seek other forms of dispute resolution (which, in essence, is just another form of discussion). So on the surface, it would seem rather odd to direct an offender to BRD. Why not instead, direct them to a page that focuses solely on discussion as you suggest? I think I see where you're coming from, and it makes sense to question this logic.On the other hand, BRD outlines principles that can help avoid edit warring including: maintain civility, listen carefully, avoid re-reverting, seek compromise, or simply walk away. It even emphasizes dispute resolution and other alternatives to BRD, which cover situations that involve more than a few editors. The questions, "How did I get here?", "What did I do wrong?", "What could I have done differently?", are likely going to be answered if the editor bothers reading the page. In that sense, the BRD page (and not so much the BRD cycle) can be a useful link to give to editors that find themselves entangled in an edit war. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it would be better to direct editors to a page that meets their actual needs. Right now, we're sending them to a page that gives some applicable advice mixed up with some inapplicable advice, and hoping that they'll be able to figure out which parts are which.  We can do better than that.
 * If we want to tell people how to start a discussion, then Help:Introduction to talk pages/1 is one of the best options, because it is short enough that people might read it.
 * If we want to tell people that it's time for discussion to replace reverting, then we could just say that, and not link to anything. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:05, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I actually do like the idea of linking to a shorter page. If the only reason is because they'll be more likely to read and understand it, then that's reason enough! However, it may still be beneficial to link to BRD within a more applicable statement. Change this:
 * "Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done." (word count: 41)
 * To this:
 * "Instead of reverting, the best practice at this stage is to seek consensus through discussion, not edit-war. See Help:Introduction to talk pages for how to begin a new discussion. To avoid future edit wars, consider using the bold, revert, discuss cycle." (word count: 42)
 * Just an idea. If we end up dropping BRD altogether, it's not a deal-breaker in my eyes. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * And actually, we would probably want to place "To avoid future edit wars..." at the end of the 1st paragraph (if we were to use that example). --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We could point to Edit warring, which in turn points to Editing policy. Both of these are policies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * (Disclaimer: The responses below came before this comment) Yes, that would be an acceptable substitute for BRD. Much more concise and has the backing of policy. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe change that sentence to read "The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See Editing policy for more information."?
 * It could even be more direct: "Please follow the Editing policy about talking to other editors instead of reverting." WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The more direct option sounds appealing. Also, if there's still a way to incorporate Help:Introduction to talk pages without creating an overlink concern, might be worth considering. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

That reads well to me, or at least it would if Help:Introduction to talk pages/1 were a suitable target but it isn't. Help:Introduction to talk pages/All is better but not much. Would it help to add a subsection to the /All version called "Dispute resolution" that reads something like Article talk pages are the place where we work out how best to improve articles. Sometimes editors disagree at first sight how best to do this: the talk page is used to resolve these differences and try to reach consensus on what changes should be made. (See Wikipedia's bold, revert, discuss cycle if you need a fuller explanation.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Maynard Friedman (talk • contribs) 12:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * @John Maynard Friedman, are you trying to tell the recipient of this template how to resolve a dispute, or how to start a discussion on the talk page? When you've made tens of thousands of edits, like all of us in the discussion have, then it's very easy to forget that newcomers don't even realize that talk pages exist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * First an apology: my response was, somehow I failed completely to spot your response to it.
 * No, what I am saying (to GoneIn60) is that the suggested text of the template is fine and should make sense to inexperienced users as a 'first response'. Sending them to the help: page about talk pages is a good idea and avoids bogging down the template in explanations about how to use talk pages. The problem I identify is that, when they go to the help: page, there is nothing there to guide them further. So my proposal was in addition to GoneIn60's, not instead of it.
 * Turning to your contribution of 17:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC), yes I support that idea. The only question is whether it belongs in the edit-war template or the help:talk pages. Although I think the latter more appropriate, pragmatism [as in we can resolve it here] favours your latest suggestion. The links would need to be wrapped nicely, of course, but that's a detail. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing wrote:
 * "That's the problem. "Some general form of BRD" is not what's wanted. What's wanted is "some general form of talking to other editors" is what's actually wanted. BRD is a very specific, one-on-one negotiation tactic."

There is no reason we can't do both. Unfortunately, there are two discussions in different places, this one and this one. In response to the latter discussion, I have gathered ideas from that discussion and written a short essay, "Short BRD", that focuses on using BRD as a method to enforce discussion and collaboration to avoid edit warring. Take a look at the essay and feel free to use the talk page there. -- Valjean (talk) 20:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The longer and more complicated the instructions are, the less likely anyone will read and follow them.
 * Your "short" page is not short. It's more than a thousand words.  It also isn't BRD (as actually written, not as guessed by people who have never read past the title).  I'm also not convinced that it's a better option than the policy at Editing policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * WhatamIdoing, it's a whole lot shorter than the complicated page here, and it also focuses on what you point out as the most important thing, which is talking/discussion. It is how BRD functions in practice and how I've always used it. The current page suffers from rule creep, so that makes it confusing, hence the objections we're seeing in this discussion. I tried to boil it down to the essence of what's important, and we agree on what that is as described in the Nutshell: BRD is a method to enforce discussion and collaboration to avoid edit warring. -- Valjean (talk) 17:22, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * (I just cut it to a third of its initial length; see the discussion at WT:BRD about this.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Even ArbCom relies on BRD, so it shouldn't be downplayed as optional. It is a de facto policy. See the top of this talk page: Talk:Donald Trump. The DS sanction is a 24-hr BRD restriction. -- Valjean (talk) 01:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)


 * ArbCom did not impose BRD on that page. @Awilley did.  You might be interested in reading User:Awilley/Enforced BRD FAQ.  He's not talking about the normal BRD, which has advice about only talking to the editor who reverted you (or at most one other editor), so you can build consensus one editor at a time.  He's only talking about requiring discussion before re-reverting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Template:Uw-coi-username
I've added some text to Uw-coi-username/sandbox to clarify that role names are not acceptable per WP:ROLE. I hope it'll reduce the number of rename requests rejected. Any objections to putting it live? Cabayi (talk) 12:51, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Cabayi (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Template:Uw-compromise1 - Template:Uw-compromise4im
These user warning templates would be used when a user compromises their account with user scripts. Template:Uw-compromise1 would display: Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute here, but you appear to have compromised your account with your user page. Your edit to your user page has been reverted. Compromising an account is making it do things it does not have permission to do. Thank you! Template:Uw-compromise2 would display: Please refrain from compromising your account. Your edit to user page has been reverted. Thank you! Template:Uw-compromise3 would display: Please stop. If you continue to compromise your account, you may be blocked from editing. Template:Uw-compromise4 would display: You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you compromise your account. Template:Uw-compromise4im would display: This is your only warning; if you compromise your account again, you will be blocked from editing without further notice. The reason "may" is replaced with "will" is because a user may perform a very serious action that can result in removal of all groups with that right. Faster than Thunder (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)


 * How does one "compromise their account with user scripts"? – Novem Linguae (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * By using code that performs special actions that the account does not have permission to do. Faster than Thunder (talk) 17:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to be rude, but do you actually know what a compromised account is? You can't use scripts to perform actions that your account does not have permission for - and that isn't what compromised means anyway. An account is compromised when a user script does something like sending your login cookie to another site. Again, I don't mean to be rude, but I think it would be a good idea for you to stop proposing new warning templates until you have the experience to know when it is appropriate to use them and what kind of issues require a warning, this is the second terrible idea for a series of warning templates you've proposed in the last few weeks, the last one being a warning for users that a page they created had been kept at AFD. If you want to get involved in anti-vandalism work I would strongly suggest that you start by doing one of the training courses at the WP:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy, rather than proposing a new series of warning templates. 192.76.8.80 (talk) 10:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * These make no sense as a series of warning templates. If an account is compromised policy is to lock it and let the WMF's trust and safety team deal with restoring it to the rightful owner, it therefore doesn't make any sense for us to use escalating warnings for something that should never occur more than once. This is also an extremely rare issue, I'm not aware of any instances of it happening since mediawiki banned loading arbitrary pages as javascript, so these templates would probably never be used. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:56, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Also I'm not aware of anyone compromising their account in this manner intentionally, so this doesn't seem like a warning is an appropriate response here. A polite notice would probably be better (and given how infrequently this occurs a custom message by an interface administrator should suffice). 163.1.15.238 (talk) 13:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. This is a solution looking for a problem. The common meaning of "compromised account" is that a malevolent third party has taken control of it and is using it against the rightful owner's wishes. Do you seriously believe that such a third party would be impressed by cascading warnings? In any case, if we accept as given FtT's strange definition (that it means "using it to run scripts without authorisation"), again cascading warnings are not the appropriate response. Abandon. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Template:Uw-copyright-remove
I'm horrible with templates; this template is used a bit beyond the removal of the Copyvio template and expands to all templates as such, like cv-revdel and db-g12. Is it possible to rework the template phrasing? or could this possibly be merged into uw-tdel1 and the rest of that series? Sennecaster ( Chat ) 18:37, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Why was Uw-mos4im deleted?
I noticed that Template:Uw-mos4im was deleted. Why is this? Anonymous from Stack Overflow (talk) 18:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you're thinking about the right template? According to the logs that template only existed for 2 days in 2019. It was deleted under criterion WP:T2 as a misrepresentation of Wikipedia policy. 192.76.8.80 (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, that makes more sense, but I'm still confused as to why it wasn't simply edited to create something equivalent to Uw-mos4 except with the standard 4im message. Anonymous from Stack Overflow (talk) 20:01, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

subst:uw-login is inconsistent with the rules
Template:Uw-login states that there are many reasons for editing while logged out that are allowed, but the template says "Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing." This contradicts WP:LOGOUT: "There is no policy against someone with an account editing the encyclopedia while logged out, per se. This happens for many reasons, including not noticing that the login session had expired, changing computers, going to a Wikipedia page directly from a link, and forgetting passwords. Editors who are not logged in must not actively try to deceive other editors, such as by directly saying that they do not have an account or by using the session for the inappropriate uses of alternative accounts listed earlier in this policy. To protect their privacy, editors who have edited while logged out are never required to connect their usernames to their IP addresses on-wiki." It is my understanding that templates shouldn't contradict policies, and reading this the template could cause users who aren't familiar with the policy to either incorrectly think they are breaking the rules or users to incorrectly add this warning to users who are following the rules. Anonymous from Stack Overflow (talk) 18:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see the contradiction. The first template is very specific in that it refers to editing as an account and an IP in the same setting, which is almost always blockable sock puppetry - see the 6th bullet point in WP:ILLEGIT. 192.76.8.80 (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * What does "setting" mean in this context? Anonymous from Stack Overflow (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * In this sentence "setting" means "place" or "context". Some examples would be things like joining a discussion by voting as an account then replying to responses as an IP, Using an IP to remove a speedy deletion/clean-up notice from a page you wrote as an account (this happens a lot with spam articles), or using an IP on a talk page to support a change you made to an article as an account. 192.76.8.80 (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Edit request
There's a lone  in there. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:37, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * you took its friend away. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:40, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Sorry about that. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 01:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Uw-editsummary error on first line, spaces leads to code frame
When I used Uw-editsummary, substituted of course, it introduced four spaces on the first line, which apparently makes the text be in a code example frame,  That was an interesting mechanic, news to me. Has it to do with ? It wasn't carried over, and I don't know what it does. --Mango från yttre rymden (talk) 15:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Template:Uw-repetitive1 - Uw-repetitive4im
These templates would be used when a user repetitively makes the same talk page thread on the same talk page. Template:Uw-repetitive1 would display: Hello. It might have not been your intention, but you posted the same thread [|multiple] times on. Please do not do that. Thank you for your understanding. Template:Uw-repetitive2 would display: Please stop posting the same thread multiple times on one talk page. Your thread has been removed. Template:Uw-repetitive3 would display: Please stop posting duplicate talk page threads on one talk page. If you continue to do so, as you did at [|multiple] times, you may be blocked from editing. Template:Uw-repetitive4: Template:Uw-repetitive4im: Faster than Thunder (talk) 04:29, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * On each page, there will be a Contents box, with links to each section of the page.
 * Sometimes, talk pages get so long that some comments become unfindable.


 * Suggestion for Template:Uw-repetitive2 that contains the parameters Template:Uw-repetitive1 and Template:Uw-repetitive3 have:
 * Please stop posting the same thread multiple times on one talk page, as you did at [|multiple] times. Your thread has been removed. Anonymous from Stack Overflow (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Is this really a common enough occurrence to be worth a warning template? (also...I can't imagine a situation where this would need a 4im). SubjectiveNotability  a GN franchise (talk to the boss) 19:12, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * AM30228479 spammed Veverve on their talk page for the first time, so I left AM30228479 a message. Faster than Thunder (talk) 18:13, 18 December 2021 (UTC) If other people spam, we would need to create these templates. Faster than Thunder (talk) 18:13, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I really don't see the need or use case for these templates. Most of the times I've seen someone post the same message twice on a board it's either a technical error (like loosing an internet connection and submitting the edit twice) or a complete newbie making a mistake, in neither of these cases is any kind of warning justified, let alone needing a series of escalating templates. If someone is deliberately disrupting a talk page by spamming the same message over and over again then the standard disruptive editing templates fit the bill nicely. We don't need a custom warning template for every conceivable way someone could be disruptive. 192.76.8.80 (talk) 19:13, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

just to get things straight: the user did not spam my talk page, but my alerts, and consequently my mailbox since revert notifications automatically send me an e-mail. Veverve (talk) 18:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Template:Uw4im - "may" or "will"?
The 4im user warning templates are a user's only warning, so should it be This is your only warning; if you again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. or This is your only warning; if you again, you will be blocked from editing without further notice. Faster than Thunder (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)


 * We don't want to make promises we can't keep, so I'm a little wary of "will". Some vandals might interpret it as a challenge, e.g. "hah, they promised to block me, so let's try to vandalize subtly to prove them wrong". There's still some risk of that with "may", but not quite as much. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:12, 27 December 2021 (UTC)


 * See Wikipedia_talk:Template index/User talk namespace/Archive 15 for more consensus on using "may" instead of "will"". I couldn't find the original discussion that changed "will" to "may", but it should be in the archive somewhere. BilCat (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Customizing warning headers for Twinkle
When designing a soft version of a user warning template recently (see above), one of the things I'd like to do is to replace the standard [Month][Year] header with a different default ("Reverting at [Page]"). My reasoning is that, despite being theoretically neutral, many editors (rightly or wrongly) learn to recognize [Month][Year] appearances in a user talk ToC as a proxy for "this is a potentially problematic user getting warned all the time", and many users therefore resent having [Month][Year] talk page sections opened on their page. This, in turn, sometimes dissuades patrollers from using some of the softer warnings on other experienced editors.

Does Twinkle have the ability to use a different default header if one is defined for a user warning template? If not, would that be desirable and/or feasible? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 23:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this is a good idea, it would be nice to assign a custom header. Also, your rational on "this is a potentially problematic user getting warned all the time" is true, but sometimes it a good thing   -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 21:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Reflecting on this, it can definitely sometimes be a good thing, but the issue is that it puts a sort of minimum floor on the severity of warnings. If the only issue is that a user doesn't know how to fix a ping or hasn't stuck to the definition of a minor edit, I'd like to be able to communicate with them about that, but if the only convenient way to do so is one that brands them as a problematic editor, I might just decide to skip it. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 21:28, 27 December 2021 (UTC)


 * This could potentially involve changing code in several anti vandalism tools such as Twinkle, Huggle, and RedWarn. I wonder if the payoff is worth the effort here. – Novem Linguae (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * CCing IRT RedWarn. My concern is that not every template uses the Month Year format for headers.  Sennecaster  ( Chat ) 18:33, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This seems more like a general tool feature request than a template one, since templates themselves don't actually have the section header (and this is actually not permitted per the user warning design guidelines). Might be better requested as issues on each tool's respective repositories (TW, RW, HG) or talk pages (TW, RW, HG). Chlod (say hi!) 19:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @Chlod A bunch of user warning templates have optional non-default headers. It seems logical to have the suggested header stored at the template itself, since the best header will be the same no matter which tool is used to deliver it. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Template:Uw-emqsd1 - Template:Uw-emqsd4im
These templates would be used when a user edits or moves a page which makes that page meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion. This template should not be used if the criteria the page meets is G7.

Template:Uw-emqsd1 would display: Hello, I'm User: Example. I wanted to let you know that you appear to have made an edit or move to has been undone because it caused the page to meet. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Template:Uw-emqsd2 would display: Please do not make edits or moves that cause pages to meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion. Your edits appear to and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use. Repeated may result in the loss of editing privileges. Template:Uw-emqsd3 would display: Template:Uw-emqsd4 would display: Template:Uw-emqsd4im would display: Faster than Thunder (talk) 05:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Once again you're proposing a set of templates that make no sense and simply illustrate that you don't understand what you're writing about. You cannot edit a page to make it meet the criteria for speedy deletion, the top of WP:CSD is quite clear that . If someone turns a page into something that would fall under a speedy deletion criteria their edits are just reverted and/or rev-delled. The criteria for speedy deletion are so vast that these warning messages end up uselessly vague - the recipient isn't actually going to know what they did wrong, they could have added a copyvio, promotional material, attack content or a load of other things. You really should stop playing around trying to be an admin because it's becoming disruptive, it's obvious that you don't have a clue what you're doing and other editors are having to waste a load of time responding to your proposals - this is the fourth terrible idea for a set of warning templates you've come up with. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

New notice for misuse of PROD?
Ran across a case where a (new!) user had prodded a page that had previously had a prod declined. I wanted to warn them but there was no such warning, something like:

I noticed that you tagged with prod for proposed deletion. I have removed the tag from the article because a previous attempt to propose deletion for this page was declined or because a deletion discussion had already taken place. As a result, any future action to delete this page must be agreed at a deletion discussion at Articles for deletion. Please read that page for more information on how to start a deletion discussion.

Would this be useful? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * is Deprod-reprod what you're looking for? there's a whole series of user warning templates for use with prod, have a look at Template:Proposed deletion templates 86.23.109.101 (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


 * That's it! Twinkle doesn't link to it, so I wasn't aware of its existence. Thanks! Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 21:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

User warnings for misuse of user talk page
I have seen multiple users misusing their user talk page as a secondary or primary userpage. I wonder if anyone can make this single level notice, or how I can get consensus for making that. HelixxUnderscore (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Should the templates look like:
 * Hello, I'm User: Example . I wanted to let you know that you seem to be using your user talk page as a primary or secondary userpage. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse.
 * Faster than Thunder (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

UWs to editors on mobile
Template:Uw-editsummary needs a very prominent hat note to say Do not use this template for editors editing on mobile, because the mobile interface does not provide any opportunity to add an edit note, let alone one that looks like the image. Better still of course, fix the mobile interface. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * can you clarify; "the mobile interface does not provide any opportunity to add an edit note", because afaik, you can leave an edit summary when editing using either the mobile view on a mobile browser, or when using the mobile app. -  wolf  17:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The issue seems to be specific to new discussions (Add discussion) on talk pages. I'm sure that there have been other occasions where my comment has been posted without giving me an opportunity to add an edit note but I can't reproduce it. If it happens again, I will come back here with details.
 * (In the course of that investigation, I see why so many IP edits go at the top of talk pages: that is the only option offered unless you are a mind-reader and recognise Read as wiki page as being the door to section-specific comment. There is no such gate-keeper on main space.) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

User warning level 3voa
This level should be used instead of level 3 on vandalism-only accounts. For example, if I saw a vandalism-only account, I would use this level on them instead of 3. Vandalism-only accounts should have one less chance than other accounts. It should display: You will be blocked without warning if you continue to. You have been warned previously that your edits and have disregarded them; this is your final warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than vandalizing the hard work of others.

Faster than Thunder (talk) 23:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Warning levels are optional, though admins may take a skipped level into account when considering a block. Also, see the replies to your post above,, on why using "will" instead of "may" is inadvisibile. BilCat (talk) 23:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Multiple articles in Uw-copyright templates
Is it feasible to update Uw-copyright, Uw-copyright-new, Welcome-copyright to accept multiple articles?

I sometimes come across an obvious copyright violation (often a new editor acting in good faith), and I'll then check that user's contributions for other copyright violations - as with vandalism, it's common to see one editor do the same sort of thing on multiple pages. I'd like to be able to list multiple pages in a single warning, rather than multiple warnings (example). I could use the "comment", "other text" field, but that appears right at the end, whereas it would make more sense to list all of the relevant pages together. (I could put all the relevant pages in the "comment", but the "article title" field gives standard wording, which is presumably a good thing.) Mitch Ames (talk) 07:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I'd like to have that as an option for all warning templates. I think it'd be very useful. BilCat (talk) 07:51, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Typically, if I need to add any info, be it additional articles under the same notice, listing additional guidelines, etc., I just use a level 3 subheading directly under the notice and add whatever info I need with a personal note. It would be handy to have to ability to add multiple articles to a single notice, but failing that, I find this approach works fine. (imo) -  wolf  14:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Softening Template:Uw-ewsoft
I recently tried drafting a softer alternative to Template:Uw-ew before realizing that Template:Uw-ewsoft already exists. It's not particularly differentiated from Uw-ew, though, which I think is probably part of why it's underutilized. The other part is that it has a lot of trappings that make it suitable only for beginners, whereas I think the more common use case is where a semi-experienced editor has gotten drawn into an edit war with a newcomer trying to do something problematic because they don't know where to seek help. I think that my version helps address these things; would others approve of adopting it? (I have a separate technical question about headers, which I'll open in a new thread below to keep separate discussion separate). &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 23:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * (Archive edit) ✅. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Surprising, but not bad. Thanks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I was surprised too when I went to use it just now. I agree that it's not bad, but I was taken aback by the clause I understand your stance. I'm not sure that's always going to be appropriate. Indeed, I'm often baffled by a new user's intent when they refuse to write coherent edit summaries or engage on talk. Other times I am actively suppressing my understanding of what seems likely to be their intent in order to assume good faith. In either of these types of cases, I don't think I'd feel comfortable using a template with this language in it. Generalrelative (talk) 04:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * (Unarchived so we can continue discussion) @Generalrelative and @ToBeFree, thanks both. On I understand your stance, that makes sense, although I wonder how often it makes sense to use the soft version in that scenario (as an aside, I think we could definitely improve uw-ew too). Would something like I understand the impulse be better? Or something similar? It helps soften the message better to have some sort of acknowledgement that when you see someone make a bad revert, it's a natural impulse to think "I should undo that to bring back the better version". &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your response. I definitely think that's an improvement, but how about instead getting rid of the "I" statement altogether? That way we don't have to make too many assumptions about the mindset of the person giving the warning. I'm thinking something like: The impulse to revert an edit you disagree with is understandable. Generalrelative (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds good; adopted! &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thanks. Generalrelative (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking over the new text again, I'll take this opportunity to point out another spot I think may be problematic: the suggestion that the new editor Warn the other editor for edit warring and request they be blocked if they persist. This seems like it might be interpreted as an invitation to deflect or even escalate when the norm we want to encourage is discussion that focuses on content. After all, this is a template for inexperienced editors who are not yet familiar with the WP:BRD process, so it seems to me that should be emphasized rather than the possibility that they pursue sanctions. Generalrelative (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with wording, good insight,  -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 22:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree that's something to be wary of, as someone involved in an edit war likely isn't feeling too warmly toward the other editor they're warring with, and they'll likely jump at the suggestion even if the other editor hasn't warred or hasn't as much. Sometimes it's good advice, though. But thinking it through, the editor delivering the notice has presumably looked over the situation, and if the other editor is warring, they've likely already gotten a notice. Let's maybe swap out that bullet point for one about discussing on talk. Talk of warning should be more focused on future developments, and maybe turned into a parameter rather than included by default (I wish anti-vandalism tools were better about incorporating parameters, but that'll come someday). &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

That all makes sense. While you were posting, Sdkb, I was working on this suggested text. I'll offer it here just in the interest of furthering the discussion:

Hi ! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of an article several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if you believe they are justified. All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on relevant article talk pages or noticeboards rather than repeatedly revert one another.

If you've been reverted yourself, the best next step is to start a new discussion on the article's talk page. If disagreement persists, or if the other parties in the dispute refuse to engage constructively, there are several ways you can seek help: Using these instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Generalrelative (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Request a third opinion at the talk page discussion or use another method of dispute resolution.
 * Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard.
 * Inquire with the help desk or at Wikipedia's Teahouse about the situation.


 * Note the edits to the first sentence to accommodate a case in which the new editor has been edit warring with more than one other person. Generalrelative (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that's definitely a step in the right direction, but I'm wary of using conditional "if" statements about present circumstances like If you've been reverted yourself in templated messages, since they're a strong reminder that it's a pre-written message (since a human would know the specific circumstance), and any signal (even if subconscious) that makes a message sound less human reduces its efficacy. I'm not sure if it'll be possible to avoid that here, but let's brainstorm.
 * The other concern is that we want this message to be beginner-friendly but not so beginner-focused that it comes across as patronizing to semi-experienced editors. The real-life situation that prompted me to do the rewrite was one with a semi-experienced editor warring against a SPA doing something problematic. The SPA got uw-ew but there was nothing for the semi-experienced editor, since uw-ewsoft at the time would've been both too patronizing and too harsh. We've addressed the harshness, but the Teahouse message might come across as patronizing for some recipients of this message. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, good points. Let's continue to think this through and hopefully some more voices will chime in. I do appreciate your initiative in deciding to improve this template. It really serves an important function. Generalrelative (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I made some more tweaks, removing the part about warning the other editor. For dispute resolution options beyond the talk page, I switched to Dispute resolution requests, which I think is much more helpful than the detailed policy page WP:Dispute resolution. It includes the edit warring noticeboard if needed, as well as 3O, the specialized noticeboards, etc. That helped to cut down on the length of the message a lot and lets us point to a single place rather than giving multiple options (which leads to choice paralysis). &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 00:19, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, that looks great! I love how succinct you've made it without sacrificing what's essential, and even added the helpful links to WP:TALKPAGE and WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS. This looks like a huge improvement to me. Generalrelative (talk) 00:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

,, I've just placed uw-ewsoft on a user's talk page and was so impressed by the new wording that I looked for something to fix in the template just to be able to add an edit with an edit summary saying "fixing X -- I'm impressed, thanks to everyone who was involved in rewording this template. The result is perfect." But I wasn't able to find something to fix. Sending out barnstars. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've also noticed the changes and agree the new wording is overall better – thanks & ! I do have a couple of suggestions, though. Firstly, I think we should bring back the short phrase "as it often creates animosity between editors", which I liked as it focuses on/explains the need to cooperate, and append it to the new second sentence like so: The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable, as this often creates animosity between editors." I think it's better this way as it immediately explains and clarifies that repeat reversions aren't in fact justifiable. Another niggle I have is that I find the exclamation mark after the user's name too informal – I'd prefer to just have a comma.  Jr8825  •  Talk  16:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Template move discussion
Hi everyone, I would like to invite y'all to a move discussion taking place at Template talk:Contrib-foreign which is within the scope of WikiProject User warnings. Please leave your opinion if you're inclined to. Thanks! ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk&#124;contribs) 19:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Broadening the scope of uw-talkinarticle
Some time ago I suggested that the redirect "uw-commentary1 and its higher levels be added as a redirect to the uw-talkinarticle series. As another IP editor stated, inappropriate commentary can also appear outside the article namespace and the suggestion was denied for that reason. Taking the IP's words into account I realized that the template's scope should indeed be more open, not having to be limited to article space. 172.112.210.32 (talk) 05:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Template:Uw-subtle3 and Template:Uw-subtle4
Why don't these templates accept an article parameter, while the lower ones do? –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 03:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * nvm, the subtle4 already did, and I've added it to subtle3. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 03:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Uw-wrongsummary: Edits with wrong summaries could be mistaken for vandalism
Change it to: Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours has an edit summary that appears to be inadequate, inaccurate, or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Edits with incorrect summaries could be mistaken for vandalism. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Faster than Thunder (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not feeling this. It is the responsibility of the person leaving any warning to actually know what it is they are warning about, and vandals quite often do use fake canned edit summaries like "fix typo". I'm also baffled as to why Uw-warn would be changed to something completely different, was that a mistake? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * They seem to be talking about modifying uw-wrongsummary, they've added the sentence 192.76.8.70 (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Template:Uw-hijacking
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Please refrain from hijacking pages as you did with. Should you believe the subject you were writing about deserves an article, please use the Article Wizard, which has an option to create a draft version that you can then get feedback on. Also see Wikipedia's disambiguation guideline which indicates how to handle separate subjects with similar names. If you continue to hijack an existing article, you may be blocked from editing. If you have any questions, you are always welcome to ask me on my talk page.

Should be changed to:

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Please refrain from hijacking pages as you did with. Should you believe the subject you were writing about deserves an article, please use the Article Wizard, which has an option to create a draft version that you can then get feedback on. Also see Wikipedia's disambiguation guideline which indicates how to handle separate subjects with similar names. If you continue to hijack an existing article, you may be blocked from editing. If you have any questions, you are always welcome to ask me on my talk page.

Faster than Thunder (talk &#124; contributions &#124; block) 05:19, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 4 March 2022
If you specify an article where the disruptive editing occured, it says "such as the edit you made to (insert page name here)". But often, these warning templates are used for more than one edit on the same page, and this implies only one edit was reverted. I propose for it to be changed to "such as the edit(s) you made to (insert page name here)". That way, it applies even if the warned user made multiple disruptive edits, but doesn't interfere with if the warned user made only one disruptive edit. InterstateFive (talk) - just another roadgeek 20:51, 4 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Here are the changes I propose added to the template:
 * Information.svg Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to a page, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.
 * should become:
 * Information.svg Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to a page, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.InterstateFive (talk) - just another roadgeek 20:54, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅.  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;- ed.  put'r there 10:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Template:Uw-derogatory
The first sentence so lengthy that we should reduce it to:

Such content is by Wikipedia and as such may be hidden from public view at any time by an administrator (or in extreme cases, suppressed by oversighters). Articles or files of which the only purpose is to attack, harass, threaten or disparage certain people or groups are speedily deleted. If you add hateful, derogatory, or bigoted content again, you may be without further notice.

Faster than Thunder (talk &#124; contributions &#124; block) 05:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Template:Uw-notenglishsummary
This template would be used when someone uses an edit summary in a language other than English:

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that an edit you made appeared to use an edit summary in a language other than English. On the English Wikipedia, we try to use English for all our summaries. Using summaries in English makes it easier for others to understand changes. If you can, please provide a translation into English for your edit summaries. Thank you.

Faster than Thunder (talk &#124; contributions &#124; block) 18:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Shortcuts and text don't flow side by side
Hi! In Template index/User talk namespace text and shortcuts from the shortcut by the right margin don't flow side by side as I usually see, but one above the other, even when/where there is enough space for both side by side.

I looked into source/wikitext? a bit, and the text that went above shortcuts was from about and redirect templates, that if I recall corectly, are required to stay at the top (only under short description, as is there the case), probably for technical reasons. Next text is from Consensus template, and comes under shortcuts box instead of flowing side by.

Here I see shotcuts are included into Talk header by "Talk header|WT:UTM|WT:UW..." which seems to evade the problem. Can something like that be done there, too? I didn't intend to dive into talk header template documentation to find out it's features and limitations just yet, so a hint if/how it could be done there would be welcome. --Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 09:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Template:Uw-ewsoft
Hello. I recently implemented {{subst:Uw-ewsoft}} on a user's talk page. However, I wish to address the ambiguousness regarding whether the editor (me) needs to add a section heading when using this template, or if this task is automatically taken care of (for uniformity). Apparently, this template does not currently add a section heading to the user's page (thus, I added the heading in a subsequent edit), but the impression I was getting from the template's source code was that it is automatic. I feel that this needs to be clarified in the template's documentation. &#8212;&#160;CJDOS,&#160;Sheridan,&#160;OR&#160;(talk) 06:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Uw-generic4im
I checked the template and it was not there, does anyone know why the author requested deletion? Sheep (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * A Google search for Template:Uw-generic4im shows an archive of a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace/Archive 16. The red link to the draft template cites G13 as the draft's criteria for speedy deletion. As to why the author abandoned it, you'll have to ask them, but please note the fore mentioned discussion. &#8212;&#160;CJDOS,&#160;Sheridan,&#160;OR&#160;(talk) 06:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Template:Uw-saublock
This template would be used for blocks applied to username violations used only for advertising or promotion: Faster than Thunder (talk &#124; contributions) 19:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , we already have this (uw-spamublock). Since you're constantly proposing templates, could you at least stick to things you've personally needed? Most of your proposals have not been things that we actually need warnings for. SubjectiveNotability  a GN franchise (talk to the boss) 19:31, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Uw-plotsum Series
Any reason why there's no Template:Uw-plotsum3 or Template:Uw-plotsum4? The documentation at Template:Uw-plotsum2 shows that there's only two plot summary warnings, and no other series to use in case both of them being applied. The Silent Ones (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As the creator of the plotsum series (my greatest contribution to Wikipedia? :p ), my feeling was that if someone's hit the level of a 3 or 4 then they're probably eligible for a general warning about disruptive editing (one could certainly add a custom message about violating plot summary guidelines to that warning) and/or they're edit-warring. Presumably unsurprisingly, I give out 1s pretty frequently, 2s rarely, and I don't think I've ever felt the need to give someone a 3 or 4. That said, if other editors feel there should be a 3 and 4, I don't think I'd have any strong objection to creating them. Hope this is helpful! DonIago (talk) 13:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * In that case, maybe it should be going from Uw-plotsum2 then Uw-disruptive3? Isn't that what a bunch of series do? EX: Uw-islamhon1 -> Uw-mos2, or Uw-tempabuse2 -> Uw-disruptive3 . The Silent Ones (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking at the project page, it doesn't appear consistent. Some warning series change the warning message as you described, while others just have N/A. I don't know whether it makes a big difference either way, since if someone needs to give a Level 3 warning they can certainly choose one of the others without a clear instruction to do so (I would think). I'd certainly be curious to hear from other editors on this. DonIago (talk) 13:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I found the discussion where I first broached establishing the plotsum templates as 'official' warnings, and it should be noted that the (small number of) editors involved in that discussion didn't even feel it was necessary to create a level 2 warning at the time. DonIago (talk) 13:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

New: Template:Uw-bareurl
I've created Uw-bareurl and linked it from the template table under "Single-level templates", and from the list at Template:Single notice links. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 04:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

uw-talkin...
There's uw-talkinarticle/1/2/3 ... is there the equivalent for other namespaces where discussions do not occur on the subjectpage? (ie. filespace, categoryspace, portalspace, modulespace, mediawikispace, most of templatespace) ... discussions seem to occur on subjectpages only in WPspace and DRAFTspace, and templatespace holding pages for nominations (not regular templates). -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 05:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I personally see no reason why there shouldn't be a more generalized uw-talkinpage series... hmm casualdejekyll  21:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Seriously? In what conceivable circumstances would it be appropriate to direct a template warning at an editor familiar enough with the project to be doing anything in those spaces? Please give yourselves a UW-timewasting warning. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Template:Uw-upv
Could you change the image to:, in case it is the first time a user has been warned with the template? Faster than Thunder (talk &#124; contributions) 03:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait, is this a notice or a warning? casualdejekyll  21:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * And yes, I'm aware it's categorized as a warning. But should it be a notice, or a warning? That's the question I should have asked oops casualdejekyll  21:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Someone may have done what the warning tells not to do for the first time. Faster than Thunder (talk &#124; contributions) 17:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Template:uw-spamublock with notalk parameter
I noticed that this when the  parameter of this template is switched on, much of the instructions about the policy are missing, including the three bullet points. Should we do something about it? 67.21.154.193 (talk) 12:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2022
Please add Template:uw-pablock, Template:uw-adminublock, Template:uw-adminuhblock, Template:uw-botuhblock and Template:uw-ublock-nonsense to the table at Template index/User talk namespace.

Consider creating Template:uw-uhblock-nonsense as well. 67.21.154.193 (talk) 14:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ See diff. jcgoble3 (talk) 00:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Requesting to create Uw-draftintalk
Within the last 15 days, I came across two cases wherein the user has used their talk page to create drafts, one was a G11 (unambiguous self-promotion) candidate, and thus deleted with a deletion notice. But today, I see a (probably) genuine effort to create a draft article. There should be a template, that tells the user that user talk pages are only for communication, and that drafts are created in draft namespace or as subpage of the User page. There should also be a link to the destination page, where the draft has been moved to. Thanks! &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • C • L) 11:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "Hard cases make bad law". For these two cases of misuse and abuse, I can think of many more where editors are positively invited to put on the article talk page a draft of some text that they believe needs to be added or replaced in the article. This is often part of a BRD discussion and so is a Good Thing. So, in your second case, it would be less effort all round for you to write a friendly note to the editor to tell them about their sandbox. Uw- templates are for the "here we go again, not another one" cases where you can't bear to write that friendly note yet again. Let's not clog the list of uw templates with such 'rarely used' cases. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:48, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Why not just post a personal note directing them to their sandbox, (with link) and then on to AfC (with link) when they think their article is ready? Between those two, and perhaps links to the help desk and teahouse, that should be more than sufficient guidance. (imho) - w o lf  16:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * (oop. Just noticed JMF suggested basically the same thing above, just after I posted. - w o lf 16:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC))

Template-protected edit request on 24 May 2022
Change "Your addition to edit your talk page" to "In addition, your addition to edit your talk page" in templates Template:uw-uhblock-double, Template:uw-compblock, Template:uw-aeblock and Template:uw-spamublock.

Also, any comment about the spamublock issue in the section above? 67.21.154.193 (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌ that phrase does not appear on this template. Please view the source text. —  xaosflux  Talk 14:45, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the text under the notalk parameter. "Your addition to edit your talk page has also been revoked" to "In addition, your addition to edit your talk page has also been revoked" 67.21.154.193 (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * i meant "your ability to edit your talk page" 67.21.154.193 (talk) 15:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * check again for "Your addition to edit your talk page has also been revoked". Also, any comment about this? 67.21.154.193 (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Those still seem to be missing, please create and update the appropriate sandboxes, when done link to the updated sandboxes and reactivate the edit request. — xaosflux  Talk 16:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Most of the sandboxes have already been edited, and I know I'll screw something up if I try to revert it 67.21.154.193 (talk) 12:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Edit request: carry this change over to Template:uw-uhblock-double, Template:uw-compblock, Template:uw-aeblock, Template:SockBlock and Template:uw-spamublock. (text is only visible when notalk parameter is set) 67.21.154.193 (talk) 12:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: The "also" later in that sentence clarifies that this is a different action, it is probably best to be concise with these templates and you should gather consensus for this change as it doesn't add anything substantive and just extends the length of the text. Terasail [✉️] 12:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Template:Templates notice
I tried changing the "max" parameter in this template at Template:Uw-islamhon1 to "1", but that seems to display an unintended "1" in the "level 2" field. Could anyone help? 1234qwer1234qwer4 20:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 3 June 2022
Per this discussion (and others elsewhere, see the VPT link in that post), I'm requesting a change to Template:Uw-block. Please change to   (including all the nowiki and code tags). Thank you. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 18:48, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for getting that done so quickly! 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * my pleasure!  Paine  18:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 4 June 2022 - Visual Editor ease of use
Currently, if the example of how to use the unblock template is copied and pasted using the visual editor, it doesnt correctly substitute and use the template. Replacing  with  would fix this. See this conversation for further details. Aidan9382 (talk) 04:35, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Sidenote: This seems to have a singular transclusion. Whats the actual use of this? Why was this made and used? Aidan9382 (talk) 04:42, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅. Perhaps the creator has been subst'ing it? It may need documentation.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 18:00, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 4 June 2022 - Visual Editor ease of use_2
As mentioned to the discussion above, these templates need to be changed from to. Template:Uw-spamublock also needs to be turned into. For some reason these templates dont use a main template for formatting, and so require a seperate edit for each. Aidan9382 (talk) 04:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 18:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Change wording according to namespace of link in Uw-affiliate &c.?
I just used Uw-affiliate to warn a user who’d posted a promotional spiel to a project talk page (and had then blanked the rest), including the pagename as a parameter. The message calls the target page an article. Would it be possible to make this template—and any others similarly coded—read “page” instead of “article” if the target is not in mainspace? An auto-switch would be ideal, if that can be done indirectly from the parameter value, but next best would be to add an optional boolean  parameter with a default value of , for which a   value would cause “page” to be substituted.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  03:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ and automatic. Other templates may be updated as needed. Also, a gentle reminder that when a template is substituted, then new edits are not reflected in past usages; they're only seen in new usages.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 17:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that—and especially for noticing that idiom calls for the preposition to change as well, which I didn’t!—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  20:21, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * my pleasure!  Paine  20:55, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 20 June 2022
Template:Uw-ublock-nonsense's doucmentation isn't put into a way where the documentation subpage would show. The Silent Ones (talk) 11:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ the documentation may be updated here now. —  xaosflux  Talk 14:16, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Uw-wrongreview
Template:Uw-wrongreview has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Mz7 (talk) 01:55, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

A question
According to a banner at the top of this very page, all pages that begin with "Template:uw-" should have their talk pages redirect here. So, then why do many pages which meet this not redirect here? (At the page I've mentioned, click "Hide redirects", I can't put the raw URL here, because it put would % in the "?" and "&" in the link.) I've redirected Uw-3block's talk to here. The Silent Ones (talk) 11:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Raw url works. Try this. Aidan9382 (talk) 11:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, it wouldn't work for placing it in the dual brackets. I guess the unobvious might be a bit hard to see. :P I've just redirected Uw-blockindefnotalk's talk page to here. The Silent Ones (talk) 10:48, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 14 July 2022
In Template:Uw-ublock-nonsense, could the documentation be replaced with ? Other block templates have this as the documentation. weeklyd3 ( block &#124; talk &#124; contributions) 18:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Full-protection-shackle-no-text.svg Not done: is usually not required for edits to the documentation or categories of templates using a documentation subpage. Use the 'edit' link at the top of the green "Template documentation" box to edit the documentation subpage. You should add this  yourself to the documentation page, at the top.  Terasail [✉️] 19:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Weeklyd3 Ping to make sure you are aware. Terasail [✉️] 19:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Terasail: On other templates like Template:Spamublock, that template was on the template page itself, not the documentation. I tried placing it on the documentation, but then it showed  as the template name. It seems like that template generates the documentation box itself. Template:Block notice also says to place it at the bottom of block-notice template pages. Could you help place this on the template page itself? Thank you!  weeklyd3  ( block &#124; talk &#124; contributions) 19:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ @weeklyd3 Ah, I see I misunderstood how that specific template worked. I have added it now. Thanks, Terasail [✉️] 19:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! weeklyd3  ( block &#124; talk &#124; contributions) 19:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

uw-username
Hey! I noticed that the template uw-username was causing pages to be put under this tracking category. The issue seems to originate from the call of. Is there any good reason for having this ifeq call, or would it be safe to remove, as its causing a template call to ROOTPAGENAME instead of a magic word call. Aidan9382 (talk) 10:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi Aidan, ROOTPAGENAME is also a magic word, see Help:Magic words. Now, what this basically does is, 1) checks whether the current current username is the equal as the username at the time of assigning notice (safesubst: ROOTPAGENAME). 2) If they're the same, the talk page populates the category. If the user in question has already obeyed the instructions and made a username change, their talk page no longer requires to be categorised here and gets automatically removed because 'current name'≠'subst name'. &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 23:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

ew-uwsoft
I have reverted the change made to uw-ewsoft that removed the wording that warned the recipient about 3RR. While the purpose of the warning is to be softer worded and therefore a less WP:BITEY template, it does not need to be worded such that it doesn't even notify them about 3RR. If you can be given an edit-warring template and then brought to WP:AN3 for violating 3RR, you should at least be notified that it's a brightline rule first, otherwise a new editor is being potentially punished for something that they're not even aware of. The template needs to mention 3RR, there's no reason to remove that and we're not doing anyone any favors by notifying them about edit warring but failing to mention 3RR, given how important 3RR is at WP:AN3, which is where most of the edit-warring editors will end up if they continue to edit war. The purpose of these templates is (1) to encourage them to stop warring, and (2) to serve as notification for the purposes of reporting at WP:AN3. If they don't know about 3RR, it fails both points, because they (1) have no incentive to stop and (2) weren't properly notified about 3RR. - Aoidh (talk) 19:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You seem to have left out the part where you reverted a change which had been in place for more than half a year. You should have come here first before edit-warring; Sdkb was simply preserving the Status Quo pending discussion. Regardless, thank you for coming here now.  Aza24  (talk)   00:09, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I would like to address the merits of the content of the template, not a timeline of when content was inserted on a low-traffic template that I assume simply went unnoticed. - Aoidh (talk) 00:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Putting aside the rather unfortunate irony here and getting to the content question, uw-ew (the stronger version) itself doesn't mention the three-revert rule, instead stating that edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made. I suspect that the reason for that is that mentioning 3RR makes it difficult to use the template on the talk page of editors who haven't crossed that line yet without getting an immediate retort of "but I'm still under 3RR!"
 * As I mentioned in the summary, no matter how carefully worded, any mention of blocking will still be read by recipients as a threat. If such a threat is needed, Uw-ew should be used instead. I think there are opportunities to improve Uw-ew that we might want to discuss. Ew-soft should be kept differentiated enough that editors will feel comfortable using it even in mild cases. Best, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 00:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I have an embarrassing confession, that I have not read (or I think even used) uw-ew specifically since 2015 when the 3RR wording was removed, I have always either used uw-3RR or uw-ewsoft. Therefore I assumed it still retained the 3RR wording, which it obviously does not. Since uw-ewsoft serves as a less WP:BITEY version of uw-ew (or at least that was my intention for it), I do think it needs to match uw-ew in terms of what it says (even if it says it in a nicer way). I don't necessarily agree with the current wording of uw-ew but I do think it serves a good purpose currently as a "3RR doesn't apply but it's still edit warring" type of template, and by extension uw-ewsoft would therefore be a softer wording of uw-ew; after all the template is called uw-ewsoft not uw-3rrsoft (which I considered for a moment but I don't really think is necessary as a template since we already have 3 dedicated "don't edit war" templates). I do think that uw-ew and uw-ewsoft should mention 3RR but as that has obviously not been the cast in about 7 years, I think what is more important is consistency and that the two match in terms of scope. - Aoidh (talk) 02:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * While this section is up, I did want to point out just for transparency that I did make one minor change to the template. - Aoidh (talk) 03:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Remove a sentence from uw-block
I think that the sentence should be removed from uw-block or at least completley re-written. I've been thinking about this for a while: I think that sentence has completely the wrong tone and doesn't impart anything useful on the recipient.

I think this sentence is extremely patronising and belittling, especially when given to established users. "One the block has expired you can go back to editing, but don't repeat the stuff that got you blocked" is so obvious that it shouldn't need saying, it sounds like the kind of thing you'd say to a five year old. I think the link to the five pillars is largely useless - it's about the most generic "catch all" policy page you can link to and may or may not actually contain anything directly relevant to the block at hand, and basically every block message will include the specific issue with the accounts edits anyway.

This message also makes it sound like all the account's contributions were unhelpful, which is not true in a significant number of situations - I think it's mildly offensive to editors who have spent hours of time to make thousands/tens of thousands of edits to imply that their edits were not useful. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 12:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Error in uw-ewsoft talk page link
uw-ewsoft uses the code  as a link to the article talk page. This works if  is a regular article, but breaks if warning a user for reverting a page in template or other spaces, with the link being given as Talk:Template:Example. Is there a template out there to convert a given page name to its correct talk page? Lord Belbury (talk) 07:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There's a magic word for this. I've made an edit to uw-ewsoft, and you can see the result at User:John of Reading/X1. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I thought there must be something for it. --Lord Belbury (talk) 10:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Documenting UPE/spam blocks based on off-wiki evidence
I've proposed some changes to uw-upeblock and uw-soablock at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy. Please see the discussion there. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: Add single-level notice for user creating non-notable articles
I’m on NPP and run into users who don’t know or understand the notability requirements. It would be nice to have a notice that in a couple of sentences discusses why notability required and what it is, then points to the notability page. This would save NPP lots of time spent introducing people to notability. Of course, it won’t help with further discussion, but at least it would provide a concise and clear start.

uw-wizard is the closest to this currently, but it doesn’t provide the right message and advice. — rsjaffe</b> 🗣️ 07:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you think it would be better to just expand what uw-wizard says to include that information? - Aoidh (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No, because, frankly, I can’t see the contributors I’m targeting using the wizard, unless forced to do so. They’ve already written an article or several, and are just puzzled as to why the article gets draftified or deleted. — <b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b> 🗣️ 19:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC)


 * If one were drafting a new template, where would it go? "Draft:Template:" space? Sorry, but I haven't been able to find this in the docs. HLHJ (talk) 23:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I've created Template:Uw-notability and would appreciate input or collaboration on improvement so that it works for what it's needed for. I don't want to add it to any lists or anything for general use until we're happy with what we're working with. - Aoidh (talk) 03:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I’d like to add some explanation to this, as I think many find the resources daunting and don’t read them. The following is extracted from the resources and edited to the most common issues I’ve seen (e.g., interviews are used as “independent sources “).
 * “A brief explanation of these terms (see the linked resources above for full definitions and detailed advice):
 * “Significant: Addresses the subject directly and in detail.
 * ”Reliable: Materials with a reliable publication process, or authors who are regarded as authoritative in the subject.
 * “Independent: For example, these are not independent: press releases, autobiographies, the subject’s website, and interviews.” — <b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b> 🗣️ 08:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I added it and made some changes to try to address any counterpoints about notability that someone might try to bring up before they happen. For example clarifying what is meant by author to try to avoid them going through self-published sources which would be a wasted effort for them as that's not an improvement. - Aoidh (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I like it! It might need some tweaking after seeing how it’s received and interpreted in real life, but to me it’s ready for a limited trial roll-out. Thanks for your work. — <b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b> 🗣️ 18:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


 * (so there isn't a Template draftspace?) That looks pretty good, but I think the how-to-fix description is too high-level for the target recipients. "The article you created does not show how the article's subject is notable", for instance, is a statement of the problem, not the solution. Maybe something more like a step-by-step guide to what to do next:


 * "All articles need to list at least one source (book, article, webpage outside of Wikipedia, etc.) which shows that the topic is notable. A source shows that the article topic is notable if it:
 * is independent of the topic. This means it was written by someone who chose to cover the topic, despite not having any personal involvement. Coverage is not independent if it is done by people with a conflict of interest (a second motive that might conflict with a desire to provide accurate information). Press releases by the subject, autobiographies of the subject, the subject’s website, interview statements made by the subject, and other media controlled by someone with a COI are not independent. If in doubt, Wikipedia has a very detailed guide to assessing independence.
 * is reliable. Reliable publications can reasonably be expected to be accurate. We have a list of common sources, like big newspapers, with an assessment of their reliablity. If a source isn't on the list, Wikipedia has developed rules for deciding if a publication is likely to be reliable; they work pretty well. If you still aren't sure, ask other editors at Wikipedia's Reliable-sources Noticeboard.
 * has significant coverage. An entire article, book, or chapter on a topic is significant coverage of that topic; a passing mention in one sentence on page 369 of a thousand-page book is not. If there isn't enough information on the topic to make a decent article, you can still add the information to another article. If in doubt, there is a a content checklist to tell whether coverage is significant or trivial.
 * You need at least one source which meets all three criteria. Two or three different sources that meet the criteria between them are not adequate. The sources do not have to be online, or recent; they must be cited in a way that lets another editor find them and look up what they say. You can get specific advice on Wikipedia's Teahouse.


 * That needs editing down, but I hope the basic idea is clear. Common-sense deciding if coverage in idependent, reliable, and trivial will usually suffice; the recipient won't need to read the fine print. We might also want to clarify if that the topic may well be notable, but the article doesn't yet demonstrate the fact. HLHJ (talk) 19:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I’d rather start brief as it is now, test it, and see if we need to expand. I’m a strong fan of brevity. We lose eyeballs with each line of text, so I’d want each word to be proven necessary. — <b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b> 🗣️ 19:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Your descriptions are nice, though, and I could see expanding in that direction if needed. — <b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b> 🗣️ 19:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I was going to say the same, I like it and it's great to include all of that, but at some point it does become a tl;dr situation where the more that's said the less is read by a lot of people. I also disagree about the one source thing; WP:GNG requires multiple sources, so saying an article needs one source is misleading. There have been plenty of articles deleted at AfD because they only had the one good source but nothing else, and one isn't enough. I did take out the sentence about not showing how the article shows notability, as that sentence seemed superfluous. - Aoidh (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

do you have any input before we roll this out? - Aoidh (talk) 19:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I somehow did not see Aoidh's or rsjaffee's comments from just prior before posting, but did not get an edit conflict; my comment was more suitable for an earlier point in the discussion, and I didn't mean to come off as ignoring you! I see GNG speaks of plural notability-establishing sources; I'd never considered that as specifying two or more sources, and I'd have accepted an article with one notability-establishing source and other supporting RSs; I'll look into that, thank you. I entirely agree that my suggestion is too long. I do think it should explicitly say that the user needs to add notability-establishing sources to show notability. Say, replace with  By WP:NEXIST, use of this template presumably means that the templating editor does not think that notability-establishing sources exist, but they might. There is some evidence suggesting that linking to talk forums like the Teahouse improves retention compared to just linking to docs (see WP:Encourage the newcomers, much of which I wrote). This is a minor phrasing issue, but it might be good to clarify that the source needs to be reliable and independent, and the coverage needs to be significant. Finally, some of the examples might be a bit confusing; for instance, I think an interview with a topic expert could be independent for the topic.  Testing it on new users seems like a very good idea, we can ask them what they understood and did! HLHJ (talk) 03:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Like that change in wording for the intro. Agree that adding tea house to the ending is good. I have an idea for longer explanations, but I’m on mobile and can’t easily mock it up myself. How about hatting the longer explanation for each of the three highlighted points immediately below the point it expands upon, and have something like “click here for more” on the hat. — <b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b> 🗣️ 07:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, instead of hatting, this would work nicely: Help:Collapsing. — <b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b> 🗣️ 14:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I'd mock it up for you but alas my mindreading seems pretty weak today . Per MOS:LINKCLARITY and MOS:SPECIFICLINK, I think the blue text of each link should describe its target as well as resonably possible. Explicit verbal statements that you can use a link "click here" or "see links above", were really common on the 1990s web, and became deprecated for a swath of good reasons. Another possiblitly is just assuming that "reliable", "independent", and "significant coverage" (once we add a link) are mostly self-explanatory and the reader will follow the links if not. This could produce something like this:

A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone Wikipedia article when it has received in  that are. An article you created does not (yet) cite such sources, so it doesn't show that the topic meets Wikipedia's standards for notability.

Resources include:
 * Wikipedia's subject-specific notability guidelines
 * a list of common sources, like big newspapers, with an assessment of their reliablity. If a source isn't on the list, there's rules for deciding if a publication is likely to be reliable, and if you still aren't sure, you can ask other editors at Wikipedia's Reliable-sources Noticeboard.
 * Your First Article and the more general Wikipedia Editing Tutorial
 * the space for draft articles, which can also be used with the Article Wizard
 * Wikipedia's Teahouse, where you can get advice on your draft from other editors


 * That draft is a bit ugly, but succinct and fairly readable. The "Resources" section could be default-collapsed. I've added the WP:SIGCOV link, partly for those who don't follow every link, partly for balance, and partly for futureproofing. The "cite" link may be superfluous, if the reader already knows how to cite. I'm pretty sure there's more than one WP editing tutorial. I'm also unsure if the selection of resources is a good one, as it's been a long time since I made my first article and I didn't use any of them, mostly because they didn't exist! HLHJ (talk) 15:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * In a couple of days I’ll have access to a real computer again, and can mock up my thoughts without forcing you to read minds remotely. — <b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b> 🗣️ 15:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If it helps, I've made a copy of the template at User:Aoidh/Sandboxes/TemplateSandbox. Of course we can also just edit the template directly, but I figured I'd offer that sandbox version as a place where we can play around with it and spitball ideas that we may or may not want refined before we put in the actual template. Feel free to play around with the sandbox or edit the template directly, whichever you're more comfortable with. - Aoidh (talk) 03:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I made a couple of edits to the template (not the sandbox) that I think get to some of HLHJ's points: clairifying the first paragraph, and making sure the interview section relates to the subject.Please read the changes ( and, respectively) and see if they're ok.
 * I'm still at a loss as to how to add extra explanation without overburdening the notice. Wikipedia's accordion collapse controls all use show/hide links to open/close so there's no option to use more modern interface styles. — <b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b> 🗣️ 23:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Those two edits are good improvements, and I think it's good the way it is in terms of length. While more information certainly is better, there's still the tl;dr issue of what someone is willing to read, and in that aspect less is more. I think providing wikilinks to additional information satisfies the "Would you like to know more?" aspect so adding something like collapsing explanations is unnecessary, as that information is a click away and in much greater detail than a template could provide. - Aoidh (talk) 01:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the Teahouse text. I was thinking of introducing this to the new page reviewers for testing, if you all think it’s good enough for wide testing. — <b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b> 🗣️ 16:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's good to go, and getting feedback from the actual editors who will use it would go a long way too. - Aoidh (talk) 17:54, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers for the discussion. I'm going to try editing the template to respond to the comments. You might want to look at the changes and see if they're ok. — <b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b> 🗣️ 21:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I've done a bold copy-edit of the template for concision and clarity, without changing the structure of content except for minor redundancies of phrasing. I also added three wikilinks. I hope these are non-controversial changes, but entirely understand if anyone want to revert them; I broke them out into small edits with a rationale for each.
 * One remaining issue: the template currently links "Wikipedia's standards for notability" and "Wikipedia's notability standards", both of which have the target WP:Notability. It also doesn't explicitly say that the person recieving the notice needs to add notability-establishing sources to their article. Here are three versions of the first para; the first is the current text, the other two are earlier suggestions of mine, the latter slightly shortened.
 * I'll play in the sandbox and try to come up with something that incorporates this and eliminates the redundant wikilink. HLHJ (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Just noticed that the list sentences don't join up grammatically unless you move "significant coverage" etc. to parends at the end of each bullet point. Apologies, will work on this in the sandbox. HLHJ (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll play in the sandbox and try to come up with something that incorporates this and eliminates the redundant wikilink. HLHJ (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Just noticed that the list sentences don't join up grammatically unless you move "significant coverage" etc. to parends at the end of each bullet point. Apologies, will work on this in the sandbox. HLHJ (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Just noticed that the list sentences don't join up grammatically unless you move "significant coverage" etc. to parends at the end of each bullet point. Apologies, will work on this in the sandbox. HLHJ (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Suggested rewrite at User:Aoidh/Sandboxes/TemplateSandbox. Possibly the bit in parends should be omitted, and the first bit still has some redundancy around descriptios of notability-establishing sources. I've tried to cover the basics: what is wrong, what can you do and how, why should you do it, and also enough of the jargon to understand the discussions. HLHJ (talk) 03:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for your edits, the template is now shorter and clearer. I asked at Wikipedia talk:Notability about how many notability-establishing sources are needed and got a lively discussion, so I decided to say "sources... add them" rather than making explicit statements about number, though more than one is usually necessary. But if others prefer to include an explicit statement, that's fine. Might/may for future possibilities is also fine either way; I used "might" because it felt a bit kinder, but YMMV. Does it often occur that an editor creates multiple non-shown-to-be-notable articles? Or a mix of notable and maybe-notable? If so, I can add options for that as at Template:Uw-medrs. Should we mention that deleted articles can be draftified? HLHJ (talk) 00:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I've just discovered the template, used for tagging non-notable articles. Should we mention it in the documentation for the template,, ? It seems usefully complementary. It encourages others to fix the problem, a more collaborative angle on responsibility. HLHJ (talk) 03:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah absolutely, adding that as a "see also" seems perfectly reasonable to me. - Aoidh (talk) 03:49, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I’ve used that after doing a search and finding support for notability. It might benefit from some of the language in the new notability template. — <b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b> 🗣️ 13:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed; do you have any suggestions for mods? I'm not sure how, technically, to modify the autogenerated doc on the uw template. HLHJ (talk) 01:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ The see also section was added here - you just add the "see also" parameter to the single notice template. - Aoidh (talk) 01:40, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

readability suggestion for Template:Uw-notability
I have found that new editors (and many people, generally) ignore boilerplate messages like Uw-notability. While I appreciate the noble intent of the message, I'm concerned the text box prods the reader to ignore it as they would a early 2000s-era banner ad. If this could be made shorter and more resemble what we might type out manually, I think that would help. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 20:01, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Template:Uw-namespace
FYI has been nominated for deletion -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 05:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for merger of Template:Uw-copying-nosource
Template:Uw-copying-nosource has been nominated for merging with Template:Uw-copying. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mathglot (talk) 04:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 1 October 2022
Add the  tags to 1. the end of the sentence (You are welcome to create a new account with a username that is more easily distinguishable, or if you'd rather continue using this account, request a username change by:) and 2. the end of the sentence (Thank you.) to fix missing end tag Linter errors as otherwise if the template is substituted, it'll cause missing end tag Linter errors. Sheep (talk) 02:21, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 02:41, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

A proposal at Uw-copyright-new might have broader implications for uw templates; your feedback requested
Template:Uw-copyright-new is one of those uw templates that has a few bullet points of text between a header and footer; there are many others of that ilk; uw-coi comes to mind.

Via happy serendipity, an enhancement has been proposed that would allow the transcluder to do some simple style enhancements of the generated text, notably, bolding one of the bullet items, and perhaps a bit more. If the proposal is adopted and gains use, this could be a paradigm for updating other uw templates in a similar manner, so getting the UX and functionality right for this initial use case could make life easier and possibly provide a consistent approach for other templates down the road. Therefore, your feedback would be very much appreciated at Template talk:Uw-copyright-new. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:25, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 22 October 2022
Please change the existing sentence:

to this:

This will link to a specific, relevant section on a policy page, rather than an essay that starts with the words "The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is an optional method of seeking consensus." It's also shorter and simpler, so people are more likely to read and understand the directions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 02:43, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:25, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Inaccurate uw-chat1 message
The uw-chat1 template currently says " talk pages are strictly for discussing the topic of their associated main pages .... They are not a general discussion forum about unrelated topics." But they also aren't a general discussion forum about the article's topic, which is spelled out clearly at uw-chat2. The uw-chat1 template should properly be used to notify a user of general chat that is about the article's topic but not about the article, but its language implies that such chat is OK. It should say "talk pages are strictly for discussing improvements to the associated article .... They are not a general discussion forum about the article's topic or any other." Largoplazo (talk) 14:10, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * agree... you should be able to make the edit, since chat1 is only semi-protected. If for some reason you can't make the edit, just let me know.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 11:13, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, done. Even though I was sufficiently confident, the edit to this template felt a bit more radical than the one I'd already made to uw-chat2 relative to its current state and I'd just wanted a sanity review before I made it. Largoplazo (talk) 11:20, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Pleasure for sure! Yes, I read it and did a double take. Good catch... seems perfectly sane to me.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 11:47, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I added one word ("discussing") back because I thought it might be easier to read that way. I agree that this is a significant improvement.  Thanks for noticing and fixing this, @Largoplazo. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Template protected edit request 25 Oct 2022
Please implement my changes in the sandboxes.

The rationale is we should not be calling vandals vandals. Doing so both feeds the trolls (who expect to get warnings and blocks and whatnot) and drives away good faith contributors who do not know the problems with their edits. If we just call them "unconstructive" it gives an opportunity for the editor in question to discuss the edit. Basically: calling the edits "vandalism" helps no one. I support linking to the vandalism policy page in level 3 and 4 warnings, so the editor in question can understand what policy they might be going against, but I don't support calling it outright "vandalism" even if it is. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 01:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...  01:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * How would changing the word "vandalism" to "unconstructive" not feed the trolls? if the trolls expect to get warnings, then putting any template on their talk page would feed them, removing the word vandalism would not solve that problem. If an editor is not vandalizing an article but is merely being unconstructive, there are more appropriate templates to use; the vandalism templates are for vandalism, and if the word vandalism is problematic then even linking to WP:VAND would be problematic. It feels like your proposed change is not a solution to the problems you presented; if calling an edit vandalism helps no one, why would calling it unconstructive help? That's also negative but now we've introduced vagueness as to what the actual problem is. - Aoidh (talk) 02:00, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thinking about it, yeah, it pushes the problem even further. No one wants their edits to be called "unconstructive" and it is not at all helpful to say "don't vandalize Wikipedia" when that is often common sense. For this maybe just a level 1 and level 2 is needed, if escalation is needed we can use disrupt3 and disrupt4. I don't want to propose a merge since this is controversial. Per the vandalism policy: "While editors are encouraged to warn and educate vandals, warnings are by no means a prerequisite for blocking a vandal (although administrators usually block only when multiple warnings have been issued)." That is where Revert, block, ignore comes into play. If the troll does not get much responses from their edits, and their edits are quietly thrown out, and they are blocked for a short period of time without much reason, they will just get bored and leave. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 15:29, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to improve uw-userpage template
I've shamelessly stolen some text another user uses (unfortunately I forget who it was) to educate people who misuse the user page, as I find the current warning to be vague. The changes are at. Comments? Should I edit the uw-userpage template to be this? With my changes, it shows up as:

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your user page may not meet Wikipedia's user page guideline. It is intended for basic information about yourself, your interests and goals as they relate to editing Wikipedia; as well as disclosures of conflicts of interest and paid editing. Although a lot of freedom is allowed in personalizing your user page, it is not: The user page guidelines have additional information on what is and what is not considered acceptable content. Thank you. — <b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b> 🗣️ 18:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * an encyclopedia article (and should not be styled to look like one)
 * a workspace for a draft article
 * a personal website, blog, or social media site
 * a space for self-promotion or other advertising
 * a CV/resumé
 * a lengthy autobiography


 * I've edited uw-userpage with the changes. — <b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b> 🗣️ 14:14, 24 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for making those changes. Those came from my subpage, User:Drm310/Userpage, which itself was based off of User:Anna Frodesiak/Cuw-promo-username-block. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 05:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your work. Hope you don’t mind my thievery. — <b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b> 🗣️ 05:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * - not at all! Glad you found some useful content in it. And props to for her work that I adapted. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 05:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Appearance looks different after something has happened to one of the templates
The template in question is uw-blockindef. On Wednesday, a vandal who disrupted back in 2019 returned to edit on their talk page for further vandalism and when I saw the page I noticed the border and background colour had somehow disappeared (see (the vandal who I am referring to) and  which was posted on the first day of 2020). When I see this version of another indeffed block user, the box with the coloured background is still there because the user was blocked this year. Can't think of a reason why placing the template on user talk pages of people who are blocked would change the appearance without anyone making such edits to the talk pages, e.g. where the last edit was made in 2020. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 23:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:AfC redirect error § Requested move 1 December 2022
You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:AfC redirect error § Requested move 1 December 2022. Clyde!Franklin! 04:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

"im" suffix on level 4 only warning templates
What does this suffix mean? Sheep (talk) 01:58, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Immediate. Legoktm (talk) 02:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Guidelines for multi-level templates
Are there specific policy guidelines for when different levels of multi-level templates should be used? It seems like the general intent is for editors to start at level 1 and then work up to level 4, but I don't see anything specifically stating that you shouldn't just jump in and use the highest level. The use of level-4 templates as an initial warning could be problematic (suddenly receiving a 4th level warning can have a chilling effect on edits). Can someone point me to existing guidance on when the different levels should be used? I suspect that something exists, but I haven't been able to find it. Thanks! ParticipantObserver (talk) 10:13, 25 December 2022 (UTC)


 * You'll find guidance at WP:UWLEVELS. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:44, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much! ParticipantObserver (talk) 02:18, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

NPOV warning
Hello,

Per WP:NPOV, I feel like Template:Uw-npov1 shouldn't simply state that the edit seemed "seemed less than neutral", as this seems to only account for negative point of views, and not overly positive ones.

Maybe something as simple as "Your recent edit did not seem to be neutral and has been removed" would work. ~ <b style="color: #00733f">Eejit43</b> ( talk ) 23:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Template question/request
Hi, as an AfC reviewer I don't generally watch user's talk pages myself (or my watchlist would be in the millions! ) Is there a template which says this, with the options to visit my talk page or email me? If not, how could I go about requesting one? TIA Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

No demo parameter on template:uw-ecgaming
When I tried to add it to the list of warning templates, all I got was a message saying "this template must be substituted". I would fix it myself, but I'm not good enough at template editing and I don't want to mess anything up. Could someone fix this? Thanks. 137a (talk) 13:43, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion to add warning messages from the Proxy Bot
User:ST47ProxyBot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waylon111 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Edit request 23 January 2023
On the template Template:Uw-uhblock, please change the linked page for the word "trolling" to What is a troll? as this gives a definition that is more specific to Wikipedia. Partofthemachine (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ – gentle reminder that this template is substituted, so the new link will only appear in new applications of this template.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 11:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Edit request 5 February 2023
On Template:Uw-vaublock, please make the text "profane, threatens, attacks or impersonates another person, or suggests that your intention is not to contribute to the encyclopedia" link to the section Username_policy. Partofthemachine (talk) 01:43, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ – rather than have such a long wikilink, and since the Username policy is already linked twice in the same paragraph, the first link has been focused to the section, "Disruptive or offensive usernames". Thank you very much for your help!  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 17:54, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Anyone fancy writing a uw- stack for edit summaries?
IMO, it would be nice to have a canned uw box to leave for editors, especially new and IP editors, asking that they PLEASE use edit summaries. All it need is a a few words giving the essentials of Help:Edit summary and a pointer to it. I'm conscious of Avoid instruction creep but I find this to be a perennial issue and wondered how come we don't already have it. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that you feel Template:uw-editsummary and Template:uw-editsummary2 are insufficient? DonIago (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Does anyone fancy writing a uw- stack for "for goodness sake, just open your eyes!" or wp:competence is required?
 * Exit stage left, pursued by bear. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Exit stage left, pursued by bear. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)